tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post4182956389552704436..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Why would a rationalist not consider the pnimiyus haTorah response as most convincing and satisfying?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90071632549627950242009-06-18T09:04:33.862-04:002009-06-18T09:04:33.862-04:00With regard to rejecting pniymiyus I just have Jos...<i>With regard to rejecting pniymiyus I just have Josh Waxman & Natan Slifkin. Natan claims that he has Rishonim & Acharonim who explain rationalist -- but he doesn't have any Acharonim who claim the entire pniymiyus approach (as taken by classic Rishonim & Acharonim) is biased.</i><br /><br />I have the Rishonim who did not invoke pnimiyos. You claim that this doesn't count because they didn't know about it. I claim that it does count. Furthermore, with regard to Pesachim 94b, there were many Acharonim who were aware of the pnimiyus approach yet did not explain the Gemara that way.Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-58008438689200875152009-06-18T09:02:32.549-04:002009-06-18T09:02:32.549-04:00Sorry, I missed this thread for a few days. With r...Sorry, I missed this thread for a few days. With regard to the following claim:<br /><br /><i>Natan -- what do you mean by "Every Single Rishon' -- with regards to this specific Gemara? Or the approach in general?<br />In any case, you are clearly wrong about both.</i><br /><br />I meant with regard to this specific Gemara. And I stand by what I said. Every single Rishon that I haev seen - and I think I have seen them all - interprets it as referring to physical astronomy, not pnimiyus. And barring Rabbeinu Tam, all take it as meaning that Chachmei Yisrael were wrong.Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-11307187270470647192009-06-15T14:52:55.758-04:002009-06-15T14:52:55.758-04:00i agree about "pulling rank," and as suc...i agree about "pulling rank," and as such do not typically do so. it just seemed from your comment that you were using the pattern of FirstName LastName in a denigrating manner, and so thought it would be appropriate to mention. i suppose i read it wrong.<br /><br />indeed, a large part of this discussion is whether the ideas should stand on their merits or whether one must yield to an appeal to authority. (of the Gra; or of modern Gedolim.)<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-81060884711218219332009-06-15T14:45:27.874-04:002009-06-15T14:45:27.874-04:00I also have Semicha (& as opposed to Rabbi Sli...I also have Semicha (& as opposed to Rabbi Slifkin & yourself actually serve as a Rabbi of a Shul & a community) -- but would never "demand" the honor not in person & not online. I always thought the good thing about the Internet was that we could discuss the ideas without pulling rank.<br /><br />And I say to you what I said in my last comment to Rabbi Slfkin -- stop arguing/debating with a defensive chip on your shoulder. I didn't intend to take away anyones Semicha -- I wrote "Rabbi Natan Slifkin" in the comment previous to the one you quoted. And I didn't know you had Semicha & I think I read your Blog before you had Semicha.<br /><br />So chill -- I like both Rabbi Slikin & Rabbi Waxman's work -- learned plenty of insightful stuff from both of you (& quoted in your names). But you are still both wrong here :-)yitzi7noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-26711039984607494872009-06-15T10:46:16.552-04:002009-06-15T10:46:16.552-04:00There are too many things for me to respond to now...There are too many things for me to respond to now (not that I'm claiming that anyone was waiting for my responses with baited breath), but I would just point out that the idea that "we" actualyl accept as the root of our mesorah such figures as the Maharal, the Gra, R. Akiva Eger, etc. is kind of nonsense. Rather, the mesorah which "we" accept is an amalgamation of their views and approaches. We accept/ don't reject the Gra, yet I don't see "us" getting within daleth amoth of his contention that you must know the seven chochmos in order to even understand a little Torah. I don't see "us" spending any time making textual inquiries, or making Yerushalmi a major area of focus. R. Akiva Eger viewed Mendelssohn's German translation good enough and authoritative enough to positively cite it, something I once pointed out, and R. Yitzchak Adlerstein in turn responded that in time and with hindsight we have seen that his approach on Mendelssohn was wrong. If we go through all the Acharonim we can find many things "we" accept and many we reject. If all this means is that "we" have rabbeim who gave over their synthesis of a certain canon, and some of the rishonim and acharonim either aren't in the canon, or aspects of their approaches were not synthesized by our rabbeim, then I will agree with you. This, then, is truly "our" dillemma and why those of us who find that so-and-so isn't in their Beis Midrash are not lying, and they can correctly maintain that it is not part of their mesorah. However, I would remind once again that it is not so that the Gra per se is part of their mesorah. Rather, whatever views and teachings of the Gra that their rabbeim and maybe their rebbe's rabbeim accepted as worthy of transmission is part of their mesorah. The authority of your rebbe, frankly, is not the authority of the Gra, so I would remind people not to hold up their rebbe's hashkafah and say that it's the Gra's hashkafah, or it's the Maharal's hashkafah or whatever.Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-80205779443908635462009-06-15T10:28:54.255-04:002009-06-15T10:28:54.255-04:00wow, you wrote a lot. i don't think i am going...wow, you wrote a lot. i don't think i am going to have time to respond to all that you have written, nor do I think it would be to any avail.<br /><br />however, i would seriously doubt that RABBI Slifkin agrees with me in every point. you should certainly not conflate the two of us.<br /><br />"Chaim B. DOES seem to say his approach is more authentic Mesorah -- but he has the GR"A on his side -- "Philosophy Ha'Arura etc." With regard to rejecting pniymiyus I just have Josh Waxman & Natan Slifkin"<br />Not that this really has so much to do with the topic at hand, but it really annoys me when people strip others of their semicha because they disagree with this. i argued against this when people were doing this with <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/02/incident-with-lipa-at-wedding.html" rel="nofollow">Rabbi Schorr</a>, because of his actions in opposing Lipa, despite the fact that I disagreed with his actions.<br /><br />For the record, it is <b>Rabbi</b> Natan Slifkin. And not that I care so much in general, except for the way that you are using it, but I have semicha as well. If I am not mistaken, Chaim B. also has semicha. He can confirm this if he wishes.<br /><br />In terms of text-internal evidence and Bereishit, and speaking for myself, see <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2005/10/parshat-bereishit-adam-and-eve-as_27.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> where I argue based on text-internal evidence (but NOT because of scientific evidence) that Adam and Chava are allegorical. And see <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2005/11/noach-as-non-metaphor.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> where, because of lack of text-internal evidence, I argue against the story of Noach being metaphorical.<br /><br />In terms of the six days of creation, since (IIRC) other non-literal explanations preceded contrary evidence; and since there are - to say the least - difficulties in the text between Bereshit 1 and 2 (which could be cast as text-internal); and since outside creation stories such as from the ANE can be seen as providing a contrast, I think that there is quite possibly room for a legitimate non-literal interpretation.<br /><br />If there is not, then the Torah is sheker, chas veshalom. But if so, so be it.<br /><br />Again, I am only speaking for myself.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-85575227478892287362009-06-15T10:11:14.455-04:002009-06-15T10:11:14.455-04:00Natan -- what do you mean by "Every Single Ri...Natan -- what do you mean by "Every Single Rishon' -- with regards to this specific Gemara? Or the approach in general? <br /><br />In any case, you are clearly wrong about both.<br /><br />Also -- Natan -- in your comments here & elsewhere -- you keep on showing the attitude you do when you write on your (very interesting) blog<br /><br />"First of all, R' Chaim's approach is very much atypical. The standard approach in the non-rationalist camp is to deny that historically there was a strong rationalist approach and that most Rishonim explained this Gemara k'pshuto."<br /><br />I love your work & sympathize with your plight -- but you gotta stop arguing with everyone as if they were "senior Charedi Gedolim" -- they -- as I have heard you point out -- have many reasons why they said as they did -- & some may not even mean it. But I thought we could get argue/discuss/debate the topic on its merits without having to keep going back to the tired old MO/RW political discussions.<br /><br />It is only surreal because you can't get out of that mindset.yitzi7noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-68505336093762416242009-06-15T09:58:51.964-04:002009-06-15T09:58:51.964-04:00I realize that above I mix together Josh & Nat...I realize that above I mix together Josh & Natan -- it seemed to me that they both agreed which each others comments, explanations, & positions. If not I apologize.<br /><br />To some of Josh's other points -- YES Chaim B. DOES seem to say his approach is more authentic Mesorah -- but he has the GR"A on his side -- "Philosophy Ha'Arura etc." With regard to rejecting pniymiyus I just have Josh Waxman & Natan Slifkin. Natan claims that he has Rishonim & Acharonim who explain rationalist -- but he doesn't have any Acharonim who claim the entire pniymiyus approach (as taken by classic Rishonim & Acharonim) is biased.<br /><br />Josh writes: "And that for sociological reasons, many people tend towards mysticism does not delegitimize the rationalist approach. Especially as we have Acharonim and our own rabbeim to follow." <br /><br />Again -- of course, go ahead. But that just explains why you think your approach is more authentic -- but NOT why objectively it can be proven as such.yitzi7noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-37820523526376957692009-06-15T09:56:53.319-04:002009-06-15T09:56:53.319-04:00Caveat: If this post & this discussion was mea...Caveat: If this post & this discussion was meant to discuss this Gemara ONLY -- then ignore everything below. <br /><br />Natan (& Josh) -- are you starting with the rationalist position as a "given" -- and then just showing that this position has plenty of support in traditional Jewish thought?<br /><br />OR -- are you looking at both options (which we will call "rationalist" & "pniymiyus") and deciding that objectively you find rationalism more authentic?<br /><br />I thought Josh was trying to explain to us why the position he was taking is the latter (which explained why he didn't prefer the pniymiyus approach which had the benefit of saving Emunas Chachamim among other things -- this was -- at least partially -- the point of the original post).<br /><br />If that is the case you have been unsuccesful. (But you have been succesful in explaining the former option).<br /><br />To further explain -- when it comes to the first chapters of Beraishis you feel free to completely reject what is the "Pashut Peshat" the basic simple reading of the verses -- in favor of a more rationalist reading.<br /><br />But when it comes to this Gemara all of a sudden you cry "Pashut Peshat!" "Simple reading as understood by those earlier to the time it was said!" Why -- for the obvious reason -- you want to preserve the rationalist approach.<br /><br />You have very good reason to read each the way you do. No argument from me.<br /><br />My argument is that you consider that "unbiased" -- I find that laughable -- as proven by how you chose to read each source.<br /><br />As I now see Josh basically agrees when he writes "Just like the medieval pashtanim who read pnimiyus of philosophy into psukim and Chazal."<br />To which I add -- "Just like Rabbi Natan Slifkin, may he live & be well, based on his scientific background finds the need to reject the simple reading of Beraishis, despite his call for pashut peshat when it fits this way of thinking."<br /><br /><br />It is clear from the above that you only find the GR"A approach "biased" because of his time & place (as opposed to Rambam) -- because of your specific scientific bias and leanings.<br /><br />(And the Rambam only wants to have that bias because to explain the Torah otherwise makes the Torah look foolish -- but the pniymiyus approach takes care of that problem -- as pointed out in the original post by Chaim B.)<br /><br />Again, all this is fine -- but I want to go back to the original argument -- which I thought was why an objective "outsider" would/should not take the GR"A approach. <br /><br />To which the answer was that<br /><br /> a "rationalist will naturally be extremely wary of such readings, realizing the possibility of retrojecting modern values onto ancient texts" and "Pnimiyus is *not* just apologetics. Rather, it is part of a much broader, literary trend" <br /><br />This is all fine in explaining the rationalist position -- but not why this position is objectively better than the pniymiyus one. Because rationalism itself can be argued to be part of a broader trend to limit the supernatural. <br /><br />And if " Better tools, to his mind, will be text-internal evidence." why are these tools not used with the first chapters of Beraishis? <br /><br />The answer to me seems clear -- that it is because of our own "bias" towards a scientific.<br /><br />Rationalism is a "given" (or at least a "starting point") -- everything else follows from that.yitzi7noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-75720362319436807502009-06-13T13:52:02.125-04:002009-06-13T13:52:02.125-04:00I am starting to find this surreal.
I am not sayi...I am starting to find this surreal.<br /><br />I am not saying that the Gra is ch"v outside of Judaism. I am saying that I find the approach taken by EVERY SINGLE rishon and quite a lot of Acharonim (many of whom were doubtless familiar with the Gra's approach and yet rejected it!) to be much more convincing.<br /><br />Others are saying that they reject the approach taken by EVERY SINGLE rishon and a lot of Acharonim. And, as is well known, a lot of senior rabbonim in the charedi world even consider that this view has been "paskened" to be kefirah, r"l.<br /><br />And then Yitzi7 claims that he is being inclusive, and welcomes the Rishonim's pshat as legitimate, and doesn't understand why I am being exclusive and rejecting the Gra!<br /><br />Look, everyone has their own way of understanding the sugya, which means accepting the interpretation of some authorities and rejecting that of others. Personally I think that I am being more inclusive - I am including authorities from all eras (Geonim, Rishonim, and Acharonim), and those who approach I reject, I am not saying that their pshat is kefirah!<br /><br />One more point. With regard to the claim that since the Gra knew Rambam and still rejected him, and therefore his view is claimed to be more authoritative, wouldn't that mean that someone who knew the Gra's view and yet rejected that would be even more authoritative? And yet there are plenty of Acharonim who reject the Gra's approach and follow the pashut peshat of the Gemara, as also taken by the Rishonim. Furthermore, the claim that this approach to the Gemara is only taken by those with a rationalist bias is clearly false, in light of the fact that mekuballim such as the Chavos Yair and Ben Ish Chai STILL interpreted this Gemara k'pshuto. So I can point to mystics who still accepted that this Gemara shows Chazal to have scientifically erred, but you can't point to rationalists who say that it must be understood via pnimiyus!Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-39428519614840774372009-06-12T17:15:38.601-04:002009-06-12T17:15:38.601-04:00well, i'm not so sure that Daas Torah is not a...well, i'm not so sure that Daas Torah is not a modern concept...<br /><br />there is a sefer called "grammar for gemara." but i think what you are asking is in terms of a pattern of distinguishing these layers. i am not sure. it would be nice, especially if it separated it by color. i developed my own intuition by reading many articles and taking several courses in academic talmud.<br /><br />an interjection in the middle of a discussion is indeed possible, but it depends on the particular gemara. for example, mar zutra's proof about <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2006/02/daf-yomi-pesachim-2b-3a-mar-zutras_14.html" rel="nofollow">naghei vs. leilei</a>, part of a series. i'd first want to check if other girsaot with the amar lei exist, who the personalities are (Rav Pappa is an especially problematic one). it also pays to check Hebraism vs. Aramaisms, such as she- vs. di; and whether the anonymous statement matches the idea put forth by a named Amora in another sugya.<br /><br />It might be a nice series of posts, or a sefer. But sorry, I don't know of one.<br /><br />Good Shabbos,<br />Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-2562091639506584712009-06-12T17:02:08.035-04:002009-06-12T17:02:08.035-04:00I understand that you are basically agreeing with ...I understand that you are basically agreeing with what I said before. Different assertions don't seem to work from a rationalist perceptive. (It makes sense to say here that according to a *true* rationalist, there should be no concept of Daas Torah.)<br /><br />--<br /><br />I have noticed these differences in Gemara syntax. However, I sometimes do see 'amar leih' being used in a conversation when at one point it cuts off, then start again. Should I assume that the middle part was added by the Savoraim. (It might sometimes kill the flow; ie. be impossible.)<br /><br />Sorry about pulling this OT, but is there a sefer somewhere that explains this (sytax reading) of the Gemara? In other words, is there a dikduk sefer for the Gemara.<br /><br />Good ShabbosYosef Greenberghttp://yachdus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-71763580431475523872009-06-12T16:33:31.315-04:002009-06-12T16:33:31.315-04:00"I find this comment to be outrageous..."..."I find this comment to be outrageous..."<br /><br />:)<br />no, alas, i mean medieval philosophy. i probably should add that i consider modern philosophy to similarly be nonsense and a waste of time. and even if modern philosophy is not nonsense, I don't consider modern applications of philosophy to Tanach and Chazal to be true, but rather absurd. I presumably differ from the Rav in that regard.<br /><br />of course, that is my opinion. you are free to differ.<br /><br />shabbat shalom,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6174445378853839842009-06-12T16:21:19.036-04:002009-06-12T16:21:19.036-04:00I would agree that much if not all of medieval phi...<i>I would agree that much if not all of medieval philosophy was nonsense.</i><br /><br />I find this comment to be outrageous, unless you are specifically referring to medieval scientific theories when you say "medieval philosophy". Much of the content of medieval philosophy is very significant and still quite relevant.Rabbi Joshua Maroofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-80860956927453735772009-06-12T16:13:57.105-04:002009-06-12T16:13:57.105-04:00there are two different assertions in play, the &q...there are two different assertions in play, the "weaker" one in which one may argue up to the Amoraim because this is the proper approach for every competent posek, and the "stronger" one in different circumstances.<br /><br />i will address the weaker one here.<br /><br />this is not necessarily a rationalist perspective. after all, it seems like the Gra held by it as well, in arguing against Rishonim. rather, it is an understanding of klalei horaah. just as some have "daas Torah" that one cannot argue against, here we have a seeming halachic statement in the gemara setting the boundaries of dispute. The Tannaim darshened pesukim to come up with theories of halacha; the Amoraim for the most part interpreted Mishnayos and Braysos and could not argue with them of their own innovation; and all generations subsequent to Ravina and Rav Ashi are restricted to understanding "the" pesak halacha as codified by Ravina and Rav Ashi.<br /><br />You want to attack that from a rationalist perspective. Perhaps one could, and in that context, we might apply (or perhaps misapply) Rav Schachter about the "orthodox approach."<br /><br />In terms of saying that something was added by Savoraim, it is not just a reaction to seeing something "wrong" in the gemara. rather, it is based on stylistic arguments. for example, there is no "amar leih" back and forth. and there is often a language switch. as well as a specific systematic approach to try to cover all scenarios. i would recognize a setama well before there is any difficulty, and often when there is no difficulty.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-4353606925641787352009-06-12T15:54:29.147-04:002009-06-12T15:54:29.147-04:00I see.
I don't really understand you distinc...I see. <br /><br />I don't really understand you distinction in a rationalist sense. Why should chasimas hatalmud create this distinction? On one hand, you have chasimas hatalmud; on the other, Rav Schachters words. Who wins? Can you claim that you would give more value to understand the Gemara's words? Shouldn't all text get vigorous shakedowns for the truth equally, in a sense?<br /><br />In short, what rationalism is there for chasimas hatalmud? (What you call a 'bigger step'. Shouldn't all steps be equal?)<br /><br />Also: You need some firm backing to say on a Gemara that it was added later by the Savoraim. You can't just go ahead and say that on any "mistaken" Gemara. It gets too easy. And wrong.<br /><br />Good ShabbosYosef Greenberghttp://yachdus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-3623726013214272072009-06-12T15:29:28.918-04:002009-06-12T15:29:28.918-04:00in theory, yes.
however, i learned (from one of ...in theory, yes. <br /><br />however, i learned (from one of my rabbeim) separately that we have a principle of ravina and rav ashi as sof horaah, such that the halacha crystallizes at that point, but we have no such restriction encoded in halacha for later semantic distinctions. (and thus we see, e.g., that Rambam argued on all the Geonim when he found an old gemara that said differently; we see Rif differ from Geonim; we see the Gra and other Acharonim argue on Rishonim.) And we see the approach of the Brisker Rav was also to understand the gemara, if need be against everyone, but to understand the *gemara*.<br /><br />The idea seems to be that at the closing of the Talmud, the halacha crystallized and became binding, and it is then a matter of everyone after -- the Geonim, Rishonim, and Acharonim, despite different names and honor accorded -- to determine just what that crystallized halacha was.<br /><br />i would indeed be much more reluctant to argue on Amoraim, but if I was truly convinced they set halacha incorrectly, indeed, according to Rav Schachter's words here (did I link to them? it is about following a Torah of truth), I should take that more extreme step. but this is a bigger step, it would seem. i am talking with multiple personalities, from two different pieces of guidance, in different scenarios.<br /><br />In my own experience, I do not find the words of the Amoraim farfetched. Where it initially seems so, it is not the Amoraim who are speaking, but the Savoraim, who are post- Ravina and Rav Ashi. Ant the actual words of the named Amoraim make a lot of sense. Have you ever done any mechkar? Here is an example with <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/02/yonah-and-goldfish.html" rel="nofollow">Yona and the goldfish</a>. All these investigations have only led me to appreciate the genius and sensitivity to text of the Amoraim even more.<br /><br />While there is a good question about how to apply these principles and how far to apply them, they still seem to me to be correct.<br /><br />shabbat shalom,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34742905412096620632009-06-12T15:13:23.214-04:002009-06-12T15:13:23.214-04:00To clarify: Why can't you, according to your o...To clarify: Why can't you, according to your opinion, argue with an Amora if you think he misunderstood a drasha in a posuk?<br /><br />In your quest for the truth, don't some terutzim that the Gemara sometimes answers for stiros sound patently untrue, real dochuk?<br /><br />I find many peshatim in the Gemara to be one that had the Gemara not said them, I would've laughed them off.<br /><br />A great Shabbos to you too, Josh.Yosef Greenberghttp://yachdus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-21197553437996036312009-06-12T14:28:36.662-04:002009-06-12T14:28:36.662-04:00"It stops there?"
yes. in which directio..."It stops there?"<br />yes. in which direction are you asking about?<br /><br />have a great shabbos.<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-40755580577977387042009-06-12T14:24:42.759-04:002009-06-12T14:24:42.759-04:00My school of thought -- and i have basis -- is tha...<i>My school of thought -- and i have basis -- is that we only cannot argue on Amoraim, but even Rishonim are fair game. </i><br /><br />It stops there?Yosef Greenberghttp://yachdus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-5175856342021076572009-06-12T11:44:44.810-04:002009-06-12T11:44:44.810-04:00chaim b:
have you ever read maaneh leIgros? i thin...chaim b:<br />have you ever read maaneh leIgros? i think it is available online...<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-49714710458307353512009-06-12T11:42:11.755-04:002009-06-12T11:42:11.755-04:00"But I AM NOT. I welcome in all the rationali..."But I AM NOT. I welcome in all the rationalist Rishonim & value their view as a legit Torah position."<br />no. because in this instance, it is not a matter of the Gra alongside the Rambam and all the rest of Rishonim (where the Gra is an extra pnimiyus interpretation). it is the Gra, and therefore DISMISS the Rambam and all the Rishonim. At issue is NOT taking their view as a legitimate Torah position. And in general, discarding rationalism in favor of mysticism.<br /><br />"And yes, there certainly WAS the pniymius approach back then -- as even Rashi brings down once in a while -- example -- on "Ani Veho""<br />But was there a pnimiyus approach <b>on this gemara</b>? If you want to discuss that Rashi, we can perhaps do it in a different post.<br /><br />"you yourself asked the question -- the GR"A couldn't read in a straightforward way? The great Pashtan the GR"A?"<br />And I myself <b>answered</b> the question. That within his intellectual framework, a different method was considered optimal. He was a kabbalist, and kabbalists do this. Just like the medieval pashtanim who read pnimiyus of philosophy into psukim and Chazal.<br /><br />"So the Rishonim can favor one way or another. But traditional Orthodox Jewish Mesorah does not allow us to REJECT the GR"A (or whomever. Yes I know he was an Acharon)."<br />That is a very frum thing to say. I don't know that it is correct. Of course we can reject the Gra. (My school of thought -- and i have basis -- is that we only cannot argue on Amoraim, but even Rishonim are fair game. But that is beside the point.)<br /><br />Of course we can reject the Gra, because there are competing traditions here, one of mysticism and one of rationalism. And that for sociological reasons, many people tend towards mysticism does not delegitimize the rationalist approach. Especially as we have Acharonim and our own rabbeim to follow.<br /><br />"But Natan seems to be saying, & you seemed to be explaining why you feel your approach is MORE authentic & the GR"A approach not so."<br />I can only speak for myself, but yes, personally I do feel that my approach is more authentic, which is a good part of why I maintain it. Would this be a good time to plug Shadal's Vikuach? <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/vikuach/first-night" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the first perek. But it not be good to take the conversation off course.<br /><br />But Chaim B. seems to be arguing that the Gra's approach is more authentic as Masorah. Do you not agree with that reading of him? You can't stick your head in the middle of an ongoing argument and assume that people are arguing with you rather than with whom they are arguing.<br /><br />"You have asked the question & not given an answer -- WHY?"<br />I gave my answer pretty clearly in the main post. That you do not see that as an answer may be as a result of your approach as opposed to a flaw in my delivery.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-27616955553791767272009-06-12T11:17:19.123-04:002009-06-12T11:17:19.123-04:00To clarify for MFM, I was addressing Slifkin's...To clarify for MFM, I was addressing Slifkin's shift from arriving at the truth to coming closer to it. He said "But that has nothing to do with the historically correct meaning." and further down in the comment, "But don't ask why other people would prefer to interpret the sources in the way that they were meant!" And an earlier comment, "But surely our discussion is about the emes of what the Gemara actually means," makes it even more explicit that he is positing a single identifiable truth here -- not an approximation of it. <br />(And I don't excuse you, MFM, I'm doing this while preparing for Shabbos, making challah from scratch, etc. Men are so incompetent when it comes to multi-tasking ;-))<br /><br />I am a student of TaNaCh, not Gemara, but I can tell you that there are difference in pshat. For example, \ plain pshat -- the approach of Ibn Ezra -- differs from pshuto shel mikra -- Rashi's general approach. When learning different interpretations, we are not necessarily arriving at THE historical truth. We have in Shmuel a listing of David's wives that include Egla. She had not been introduced beforehand, yet is given extra prominence with her description. Consequently, Chazal identify her as Michal, identifying Egla as a term of affection (like Shimshon's reference to Eglasi). Other commentators stick to the plain textual meaning and say she must be another wife named Egla. There are difficulties with each interpretations. But historically either there was another wife named Egla or there wasn't, right. We are not positing parallel universes springing into being here. But there is more going on her than an identification of historical fact; that is not all that pshat is about.Ariella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-35312447371355286672009-06-12T11:15:29.390-04:002009-06-12T11:15:29.390-04:00I'm just echoing Yitzi7, but for the sake of c...I'm just echoing Yitzi7, but for the sake of clarity, here is a thought experiment: you are convinced that most Rishonim learned a sugya in hilchos Shabbos a certain way and come to a halachic conclusion on that basis. However, the GRA, R' Akiva Eiger, and the Mishna Berura, all of whom say the same Rishonim you did, pasken against your conclusion. Do you stick to your guns and risk chilul Shabbos against their conclusion, or do you live with the question of how they understood the Rishonim and practically follow their psak? Unless you have very broad halachic shoulders, for all practical purposes I think the latter is the obvious answer.<br /><br />Obviously, if your rebbe told you that your conclusion is correct and you personally behave that way, kol tuv. But that's not the issue -- the issue is when you write your handbook for hilchos shabbos, do you include your view as the ikkar because you are convinced you are right, or do you include the Mishna Berura as the mainstream view and then footnote your kashes and mention your rebbe as a "yeish omrim"?Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-56836593125305612232009-06-12T11:06:48.192-04:002009-06-12T11:06:48.192-04:00>>>But they did not know the greatness of...>>>But they did not know the greatness of those who held the pnimiyus interpretation? Or was it that there was not really anyone holding the pnimiyus interpretation? what kind of "masorah" is it, then?<br /><br />Let's not be blind to historical reality. No, the Rambam was not likely to say a pshat involving sefiros because his worldview did not encompass such an idea, but then again, the Rambam in Yad probably never had gavra/cheftza distinctions in mind. Our ways of reading text has changed over time. Which approaches become canonized as "tradition" has nothing to do with which approach comes cloesest to "true" or "original" meaning and everything to do with communal consensus by chachmei hador.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com